Hi everyone,

Seeing as it's Friday i'll keep this post short. The BBC have produced an article discussing the issues surrounding different energy supplies. The article includes an 8 minute video that takes a look at contrasting views towards different modes of power generation. The article gives a nice summary of how people view different energy supplies and raises a valid point that no matter which energy sources we choose, someone will be offended. I believe that in order to power our country, we will have to make sacrifices such as constructing wind farms on previously undeveloped countryside. Whilst the use of different energy sources may anger certain people, I see this as justified by the need to quench our thirst for energy. 

The link to the article is here

Bioenergy

Bioenergy refers to the energy stored in biological sources (biofuels). Bioenergy is released from biofuels by a number of different methods. Figure 1 (UK Government 2012)

Figure 1 - Biomass conversion routes

 outlines the large number of sources of bioenergy and the vast array of techniques used to harness energy from them. Bioenergy can be used on different scales; from being used to heat a home to being used to produce large quantities of electricity.  The coalition government views bioenergy as a major player in the future of the UK’s energy industry. A 2012 government report states that excluding bioenergy from the energy mix would increase the cost of decarbonizing our energy system by £44 billion. Figure 2 was taken from the study and shows the government’s projections for bioenergy production over the next few decades. The graph shows that the government expect more energy production from biofuels in the future, why do they think this to be the case?

Figure 2 - Future reliance on bioenergy

There are several advantages of bioenergy. In my view, one of the biggest advantages of bioenergy over other renewable energy types is the ability to produce a constant supply of energy, making it a potential substitute for fossil fuels (Slade et al. 2010). This would complement other renewable energy forms such as wind power, which only produce energy intermittently (see wind power post). Other benefits of bioenergy include disposal of waste biological material (Cantrell et al. 2008) and the fact that biofuels are a virtually inexhaustible fuel source, which leads bioenergy to be extremely sustainable.

So far, it would seem that bioenergy is a near perfect method of producing power. There is however one pitfall, that skeptics may well be quick to bring up: the production of greenhouse gases. Whilst the burning of biofuels does cause the emission of greenhouse gases, it must be noted that in comparison to those produced by the burning of fossil fuels, the amount is very small. A 2009 study by Rowe et al. shows us that bioenergy could provide large carbon savings over fossil fuels. However, the question remains, should these emissions be overlooked? Or should we stick to renewable energy sources that cause no emissions?

Conclusions

Whilst I do not feel we will ever be close to relying on bioenergy to provide us with the majority of our energy, I do feel it should be continued to be developed and used as part of the ‘energy mix’ in order to power the UK in the future. In my opinion, we can overlook the emissions as biofuels present a ubiquitous source of energy. The government’s projections seem fairly reasonable to myself, although I do think the lower proportional estimates shown in the range of figure 2 are more realistic. Your comments on the matter are welcome as usual, do you feel the emissions should be overlooked? Thanks for reading.

Does Wind Power Blow?

Did you know? Wind power effectively comes from the sun as differential heating of the earth causes differences in air pressure, which causes wind.

As I’m sure you could discern from the title, this post will be centered on wind power and the issues surrounding it. An article produced by the UK government states that wind power generation was 26% higher in 2012 than in 2011. Meanwhile, according to an article on BP’s website, the UK leads offshore wind power production with 3 GW being our total for 2012. It would seem that our country is very much pro wind energy, but why is this?

Like all modes of power generation, wind power has its limitations. Noise from wind farms can be a problem for local inhabitants (Kelley 1987), along with the fact that some people think they are unsightly. Wind farms can also pose a threat to aviary animals such as birds (Osborn et al. 2000, Barrios & Rodriguez 2004). Other sceptics may argue that wind farms should not be heavily invested in, as they do not provide a constant source of energy. I believe this point can be disregarded if our nation is to move forward with the mixed energy approach that I mentioned in a previous post.

Along with these cons, wind power has many pros such as low operational costs (EWEA) as well as great domestic potential. However, wind energy has an advantage that I feel can be used as a trump card. This is that it is clean energy and will not run out until the sun does (and at that point we’ll have bigger problems). I believe that with the challenges we face presently, such as meeting EU emissions policies, this is an advantage that cannot be overlooked.

In my opinion, we should continue to invest heavily in wind energy as I predict that despite its unpredictable power generation, it will become a major player in our future production of energy. I’d love to hear your views on the matter so comments are welcome as usual. Do you feel investments are well placed in wind energy or should they be placed in other modes of energy production? I’ve provided a picture below to summarise my feelings on the topic, thanks for reading.

The Thorium Dream

Something that has been in the news over the past few weeks is an alternative fuel called Thorium, so I thought I would discuss it.

For a long time now, nuclear power has been used to provide us with power, albeit to a much smaller extent than oil and gas. Whilst nuclear power brings many advantages with it, it also brings many disadvantages. However, it would appear that a simple change in fuel from uranium to thorium could be the solution to many of these disadvantages. Here is a list of ways that thorium may be a more better fuel source than uranium:

•  Nomenclature- it is named after the Norse god Thor
•  Abundancy- thorium is three times more abundant than uranium and all of it is able to be used as fuel, compared to the 0.7% of uranium that is able to be used (only isotopes uranium-235 and uranium-285 are used today).
•  No long-term waste- according to Prof Carlo Rubbia from Cern, thorium waste will dissipate within 400-500years.  I agree this does seem long term, but compared with uranium wastes’ 50,000 years it’s pretty good.
• Efficiency- a ball of thorium the size of a grape could provide enough energy for someone’s lifetime.
•  No meltdowns- meltdowns such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 were catastrophic for their surrounding environments, making them uninhabitable (by humans at least) for many years to come. Thorium reactors work in such a way that if a meltdown occurred, the only thing that would need to be shutdown is a small uranium feeder plant. This would allow the thorium reactor to halt itself.
• No bombs- the bi-products of thorium are much less easily made into bombs than those of traditional uranium. What better way to save the environment than by not turning it into a desolate wasteland.

It would therefore seem that thorium could solve many of the major problems that come with nuclear energy. Below is a link to a video from Vice’s Motherboard youtube channel I found interesting. It has more in depth information about the issue and I’d recommend watching it if you are interested. Thanks for reading and as usual, comments are welcome.